04/05/93 13:57
What I outline in the foregoing minute is that the argument for Sir Nigel Reed is that the Act is concerned to provide authority for supplement, has no concern with the original award of pension and that our arguments of evenhandedness have no place. The argument for Mr Blanche is best presented that the Act is concerned with supplement, and that if exchange rate fluctuations aze to affect supplement considerations evenhandedness have every place.
I have shown the foregoing to Mr Duke who comments that he sees little change in practice of Mr Blanche succeeding in any court action. It is one thing to argue, as we do in Sir Wigel Reed's case, that it is competent under section 11(4) for the Secretary of State to take into account. a wide range of factors - in providing for supplement. It is another thing to say he is obliged to consider every factor. --Compensating for exchange rate losses in basic person has always hitherto been regarded as beyond the scope of supplement regulations because it is not a
flation-proofing.
matter of
Mr Duke comments that it does not appear possible for Mr Blanche by court action positively to force us to legislate for his exchange rate icsses. Nor does Mr Blanche at present have any practical interest in getting our provision .... för exchange rate gains sat aside, since he has not
not yet any such gains. relation to such gains we should be able to rely on the express authority of the Act.
In
Mr Duke comments that while legally we may be safe enough there an obvious lack of evenhandedness between providing for exchange Fate gains but not losses. He also comments that we need to work out a consistent policy on what we are and are not prepared to do under Section 11 (4). That depends to some extent on the outcome of the Sir Nigel Reed case.
5/4/93
;
C31007.043
3
:
Page 90Page 91
04/05/93
12:57